I’m sure there was a thread on TFL about cleaning guns, but another discussion popped up on my computer linked to one of the free routine publications associated with various gun magazines and I can’t find it now. But I do recall the question it raised in my mind, and I wonder how fellow TFL members would interpret it.
The gist of it described two extremes- cleaning the rifle so well that you could eat a meal out of the bore, and never touching the rifle EVER. So, obviously, somewhere in the middle is the answer, and I can understand the need to get the copper out so it doesn’t fill the grooves to the point that they disappear, but the emphasis as well seemed to be to at least clean out the carbon deposits. Then the subject of fouling came about and there was a statement made that at least 3 fouling shots are required to essentially “stabilize” the bore environment.
That alone alerted me to ponder, why, then, should you clean the carbon out in the first place? Or, is it just a fact that the carbon goes when you’re really after the copper and you need to replace a certain amount of carbon for proper rifle function?
The gist of it described two extremes- cleaning the rifle so well that you could eat a meal out of the bore, and never touching the rifle EVER. So, obviously, somewhere in the middle is the answer, and I can understand the need to get the copper out so it doesn’t fill the grooves to the point that they disappear, but the emphasis as well seemed to be to at least clean out the carbon deposits. Then the subject of fouling came about and there was a statement made that at least 3 fouling shots are required to essentially “stabilize” the bore environment.
That alone alerted me to ponder, why, then, should you clean the carbon out in the first place? Or, is it just a fact that the carbon goes when you’re really after the copper and you need to replace a certain amount of carbon for proper rifle function?